Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,61365
EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61365)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.05.2008 - 21050/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61365)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. Mai 2008 - 21050/02 (https://dejure.org/2008,61365)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,61365) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 18966/02

    VOYTENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
    The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).

    The Court concludes that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, whereby she could have obtained a ruling upholding her right to have her claims finally settled within a reasonable time, as set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see e.g. Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 46-48, 29 June 2004 and Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 55870/00, § 64, 18 July 2006).

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98

    JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 21050/02
    The Court recalls its case-law that the impossibility for an applicant to obtain the enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003 and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht